Looking at team salaries this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll) I noticed that 1/2 of the playoff teams- 4 teams- are in the BOTTOM eight in the league in payroll. (SD, COL, ARI, CLE.)

That's pretty amazing...

peeonwrigley

10-02-2007, 03:36 PM

Looking at team salaries this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll) I noticed that 1/2 of the playoff teams- 4 teams- are in the BOTTOM eight in the league in payroll. (SD, COL, ARI, CLE.)

That's pretty amazing...

Whilst definitely cool, the big money teams still have a decided advantage.

Lip Man 1

10-02-2007, 03:54 PM

Down:

Maybe this year is simply a fluke, or maybe it's the start of 'parity' in MLB. More time is needed to see how this plays out before drawing any serious conclusions.

Lip

spiffie

10-02-2007, 03:58 PM

Looking at team salaries this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll) I noticed that 1/2 of the playoff teams- 4 teams- are in the BOTTOM eight in the league in payroll. (SD, COL, ARI, CLE.)

That's pretty amazing...
SD didn't make the playoffs.

Note also that the other 1/2 of the playoff teams come from the top 8 in payroll, and only one of the most giant collapses ever kept it from being 5 out of 8.

mantis1212

10-02-2007, 04:02 PM

Not to nitpick, but SD really isn't one of the eight playoff teams, so that leaves three.

I think the payroll argument really says that the big money teams can contend every year, while team like the rockies and DBacks can have a shot every five years or so with a rebuilding process.

oeo

10-02-2007, 04:16 PM

Looking at team salaries this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll) I noticed that 1/2 of the playoff teams- 4 teams- are in the BOTTOM eight in the league in payroll. (SD, COL, ARI, CLE.)

That's pretty amazing...

Well, teams like the D'backs, Rockies, and Indians spent time to rebuild their farm systems. Now they have a lot of young talent, that's dirt cheap. In order to sustain that success, you need a good mix of both. The biggest example right now, I think, is the Red Sox. Second highest payroll, and they also have one of the best, if not the best, farm systems in baseball. They're in great shape for years, unfortunately.

itsnotrequired

10-02-2007, 04:29 PM

Not to nitpick, but SD really isn't one of the eight playoff teams, so that leaves three.

I think the payroll argument really says that the big money teams can contend every year, while team like the rockies and DBacks can have a shot every five years or so with a rebuilding process.

Bingo. High payroll teams have a higher probability of reaching the postseason. One cannot simply "buy" a championship but one can more or less buy a greater chance of going there. Everything has to click just right for low-payroll teams to make it (breakout seasons from young guys, few injuries, etc.)

From 1995-2001, only 4 teams from the bottom HALF of payroll made it to the postseason. Those four teams won only 5 of the 224 postseason games played in that timespan (.022 WP). None of them went past the first round.

Hitmen77

10-02-2007, 04:48 PM

Looking at team salaries this year (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_teams_by_payroll) I noticed that 1/2 of the playoff teams- 4 teams- are in the BOTTOM eight in the league in payroll. (SD, COL, ARI, CLE.)

That's pretty amazing...

...and only one of those teams is in the AL. It's MUCH easier to make the playoffs in the NL. In the AL, NYY and Bos will continue to outspend all to lock up the AL east and the AL wild card in most seasons.

To answer your question, no - the payroll argument isn't dead. We only have to look 8 miles north to see a team that bought their way into winning a crappy division. What other teams in the NL Central could spend their way out of a 97 loss season?

johnr1note

10-02-2007, 06:11 PM

If you look at the entire list and draw a line under the 15th team, the bottom 15 teams payroll wise are not incredibly impressive.

Of those 15 teams, only 6 have winning records -- the Blue Jays, Brewers, Indians, Padres, Rockies, and Diamondbacks. Of those 6, Toronto and Milwaukee are really not that far off the top spenders, as they are both at about $80 million in their payrolls, and the really big spenders are at $100 million -- crimeny, the top 12 teams are all spending nearly $90 million. Even when you look at some of those teams that didn't have a winning season, for the most part, these teams are in contention -- teams like the White Sox, Cardinals, Astros Giants, etc. Of the top 15 teams, only the Orioles appear to be perennial stragglers. Teams with higher payrolls succeed more often. Its proven. Even the top end of the bottom half are teams that often contend -- the Blue Jays, the A's, and the Twins.

What this says to me is that the super duper spenders -- the Yanks, Mets, and Red Sox -- always seem to contend. The next level are teams that have historically spent a lot to contend, or have spent a lot in recent years to try and preserve recent success -- the Angels, Dodgers, White Sox, Tigers, and now the Cubs. But all of these clubs are spending at least 95 million a year. But that makes up the top 10 spots. Then there are 3 additional teams that spend at least 87 million.

These teams are for the most part traditionally in the hunt. Payroll plays a huge factor, and I think the teams that succeed with smaller payrolls are short term successes or flukes, as they're stars eventually will sign with teams that will pay them the going rate. Indeed, the reason why the White Sox and Tigers have higher payrolls is an effort to preserve thier recent success.

You see seven of the eight teams who comprised the MLB playoffs one year ago sitting home. And you see who the one holdover is.

Money helps. Money is a wonderful asset. But money is not a magic elixir. The Mets spent $115 million, the White Sox and Dodgers $108 million, the Mariners $106 million. How'd that work out for them? The Rockies spent $54 million, the Diamondbacks $52 million. How's that work out for them?

TDog

10-03-2007, 11:20 AM

...
You see seven of the eight teams who comprised the MLB playoffs one year ago sitting home. And you see who the one holdover is.

Money helps. Money is a wonderful asset. But money is not a magic elixir. The Mets spent $115 million, the White Sox and Dodgers $108 million, the Mariners $106 million. How'd that work out for them? The Rockies spent $54 million, the Diamondbacks $52 million. How's that work out for them?

The Yankees don't just spend money. They spend money to correct mistakes, which is something other teams don't have the luxury of doing.

A team with up-and-coming stars who have never been free-agent eligible will often beat teams comprised of experienced players who are paid for past performance that they won't be able to repeat. Teams that have that success have to spend more to keep the players that brought them their success. It isn't the money a team spends, but how a team spends it.

DSpivack

10-03-2007, 01:33 PM

The Yankees don't just spend money. They spend money to correct mistakes, which is something other teams don't have the luxury of doing.

A team with up-and-coming stars who have never been free-agent eligible will often beat teams comprised of experienced players who are paid for past performance that they won't be able to repeat. Teams that have that success have to spend more to keep the players that brought them their success. It isn't the money a team spends, but how a team spends it.